Although the full game has not yet been showcased, the announcement video shows that Jordan Peterson: Douche Debater will feature debates on topics such as Political Correctness, Eating Meat To Cure Illness, and Never Smiling In Photographs.

“The ‘Ego Meter’ is something players will constantly have to contend with during debates,” Pelletier continued. “If Jordan gets too impressed with his own witticisms and intellect, the meter fills. If the Ego Meter reaches capacity, the debate is lost as Jordan loses control and literally cannot stop talking as the moderator and debater leave the stage, the audience files out, and even the janitorial staff starts cleaning the theater while Peterson continues to yammer on about cultural marxism or some other bullshit.”

“There is also a ‘Nazi Meter’ throughout the game, which shows the percentage of legitimate Nazis in Jordan’s fandom growing over time,” Pelletier added, “but that meter has no impact on gameplay and there is no punishment if the player just never addresses it at all.”

During breaks in the debate, players will be able to go backstage and engage with some of their favorite Internet Dark Web personalities, such as Owen Benjamin and Ben Shapiro, in a mini-game where you mash buttons as fast as possible to shout phrases such as “liking classical music makes me a smart person” or “discourse!” in order to build combos that act as a score multiplier for future rounds of debate.

An advanced copy of the game, which was released to select reviewers, has received mixed results.

“Just like Jordan Peterson, the game starts off seeming like it could actually be worthwhile and enjoyable… and then veers very quickly into weird, scary nonsense,” said Beth Macy for IGN.

“I loved every goddamn second of it,” said a sexy drawing of President Donald Trump in a Ben Garrison cartoon.

If the game proves to be a financial success, Capcom has promised a fighting game centered around Joe Rogan, whose special finishing move is pulling out a pair of headphones, placing them on his opponents head, and forcing them to listen his three-hour-long podcast.

And why, in the face of thousands of queer murders at the hands of Hitler, it’s still absurd.

By LAURIE MARHOEFER

AUG 24, 201810:44 AM

Ernst RöhmArchiv Gerstenberg/ullstein bild via Getty Images

The myth of the “gay Nazi,” I’m sorry to report, is back.

In a new film praised by Donald Trump Jr. (as well as in his 2017 book), Dinesh D’Souza claims that Hitler was an LGBTQ ally. Supposedly this demonstrates a big similarity between the Nazis and the current Democratic Party in the United States. This entire notion is absurd. But it’s worth asking why D’Souza was even able to float this wacky allegation in the first place. How is it possible to claim that Hitler, the person responsible for modern history’s bloodiest crackdown on homosexuality, was a gay rights supporter?

Like all dangerous lies, the myth of the gay Nazi is wrapped around a grain of reality. There was a closeted gay man in the early Nazi Party. He wasn’t a myth, and Hitler had him killed in 1934—in part, ostensibly, because he was gay.

What’s a myth is that we ought to talk only about him, and not about the thousands of other men the Nazis murdered for homosexuality. The underlying flawed, homophobic assumption is that a single famous closeted gay Nazi means there was something queer about fascism—despite the millions of heterosexual Nazis, and despite the fact that German fascists murdered more queers than any other modern regime.

If you only remember one thing about Nazi Germany and homosexuality, let it be this: On Hitler’s orders, the Nazis murdered 5,000 or more men for the “crime” of having sex with another man. Tens of thousands of other men were convicted of “sodomy” but not murdered. They did not get off easy: Some were forced to undergo castration. Queer Jewish victims of the Nazis suffered homophobia and had their histories erased. The violence engulfed people we’d now identify as trans women, too: They were often branded homosexual by Nazi officials, and a separate law banned cross-dressing. Lesbians and people we’d call trans men often—though not always—escaped prison or the camps, but they, too, were at risk.

In other words: Hitler was not pro-queer.

But what’s the truth about that famous gay Nazi? Before Hitler became chancellor, Germany was a democracy with a robust gay rights movement. In the 1920s, gay activists nearly got Parliament to repeal the sodomy law. (The United States did not strike down its sodomy laws until 2003.) For most of this period the nascent Nazi Party was tiny and marginal, campaigning for seats in Parliament just like all the other political parties.

Nazi ideology was zealously anti-gay, and the Nazis wanted no part of “homosexual emancipation,” as the gay rights movement called itself. At one point, one of the gay rights groups wrote to the Nazis and asked their position on homosexuality. The response was: “Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy.” Nazi propaganda accused Jews of spreading homosexuality in an effort to destroy Germany.

When the Nazis took power in 1933 and turned the democracy into a dictatorship, they revised the existing law against sodomy and made it much harsher. “Unfortunately, we don’t have it as easy as our forefathers,” a top Nazi lamented in 1937. Back then, he went on, “the homosexual … was drowned in a swamp, clothes and all. That wasn’t a punishment, but simply the extinguishing of abnormal life. It had to be got rid of, just as we pull out weeds, throw them on a heap, and burn them.”

In other words: Hitler was not pro-queer.

Despite all this violently aggressive heterosexuality, in the years before Hitler took power, anti-fascists started to claim the Nazis were gay. It was a way to attack them. For example, social democratic journalists in Munich charged that the Nazis were hypocrites because they tolerated “the shameless practice of sodomy in [their] own ranks.” The accusations centered on one man: Ernst Röhm.

Röhm was one of Hitler’s right-hand guys. He was also privately homosexual. He hid his affairs with men from most of the people in his life, including Hitler and other Nazis. But when the Great Depression hit and the tiny Nazi Party suddenly started winning elections, Röhm became famous. Someone who knew his secret did not like fascism, and they went to the press.

The Röhm scandal boiled over in 1932, the year before Hitler took power. Social Democrats, who were in cahoots with the police, got hold of actual letters Röhm had written to a friend. They published them. In the letters, Röhm described his desires for men. Shortly after the pamphlet containing the letters came out, the anti-fascist journalist who published them ran into one of Röhm’s thug lieutenants in the café in the Parliament building, of all places. The lieutenant went up to the anti-fascist journalist and slapped him. Other Nazis joined in; one struck the journalist with a chair. The ensuing brawl shut down Parliament and made the front pages of the papers the next day. After that, there were few people left in Germany who did not know that Röhm was supposedly a homosexual.

Though other Nazis pleaded with Hitler to fire Röhm, Hitler brushed the scandal off. The rest of the leadership was dismayed. An important Nazi ally remarked that in the old days, one would have handed a man in Röhm’s position a gun so that he could shoot himself. Hitler did not—at least, not yet.

Did Hitler stand by Röhm because he was some kind of LGBTQ ally? No. He kept Röhm because it was the politically expedient thing to do. He thought he was on the brink of taking power, and he needed Röhm’s connections to the army. Moreover, there was no downside to keeping Röhm. Hitler guessed the public’s mood correctly, as he often did. People did not much care about Röhm’s sex life. Before the Nazi seizure of power, Germany was a pretty open and tolerant place when it came to homosexuality, especially the private homosexuality of an otherwise respectable person. Hitler was not striking out boldly in favor of gay rights. He was, rather, going with the flow.

The scandal died down. The Nazis continued to win big at the polls. They become the largest party in Parliament. The democratic system fell into its death throes. Hitler did, however, eventually have Röhm shot.

In 1934, Hitler, now a dictator, ordered the murders of Röhm and a host of other people in a purge called “The Night of the Long Knives.” Though the motives were political, afterward Hitler claimed he had done it to protect Germany from homosexuality. The state-controlled press reported that Röhm had planned to overthrow Hitler. The press also claimed that when Hitler’s men arrived to arrest Röhm and his deputies, they found one of them in a “disgusting situation” with a boy. As one of the country’s leading newspapers, the Völkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer), put it, “The Führer gave the order that the pestilence be ruthlessly washed away. In the future he will no longer tolerate the molestation and compromising of millions of respectable people by a single person with a sick orientation.”

Despite the body count in Nazi Germany—not to mention in Nazi-occupied Europe—of men killed for having sex with other men, for many years the left kept up its campaign to paint the Nazis as secretly gay. The idea that fascism was queer fed on a neighboring anti-gay theme: that queer people are so morally disordered that they like chaotic violence, too.

Lots of people still believe there was something queer about fascism. They conveniently use the story about Röhm to erase fascism’s murderously heterosexual nature. Röhm’s story is a fascinating one, and yes, some—though not very many—fascists were queer (people of all political persuasions have queer sex). But let’s not only talk about Röhm. D’Souza’s book does not even mention the 50,000 sodomy convictions and 5,000 or more murders.

The reason this myth is circulating now is that the Republican Party has lurched to the far right and homo- and transphobia is in style. Equating fascism with homosexuality gets the right off the hook—right-wingers are against homosexuality, so they can’t be fascists. It makes gay men responsible for fascism, and therefore dangerous and loathsome. At the same time, it erases the history of violence against gay men carried out in the name of a sodomy law.

The logic here is twisted to be sure, but when one follows it, gay rights seems dangerous, rolling back gay rights seems perhaps a good idea, and sodomy laws don’t seem so odious. If that sounds hyperbolic, recall that the Republicans just ran a candidate for Senate in Alabama who wanted to bring back sodomy laws. Roy Moore lost, but not before the Republican president endorsed him. The same president likes D’Souza, too. That’s probably not a coincidence.

From the August 27 edition of Genesis Communications Network's The Alex Jones Show:

ALEX JONES (HOST): Chances are, if you're looking at five Catholic priests, two or three of them are pedophiles now. And again, it’s other major institutions: It's public schools, it's colleges, it's Protestant groups, it's the liberals, the left. If I criticize the LGBTP community -- I add the pedophile thing on the end because now NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association] is a part of that and they promote it. I'm now anti-gay if I say, “Don't have access to kids. Don't sexualize kids.” I don’t care if it’s heterosexual, homosexual, don't go into schools and talk about sex with kids when they’re five years old. Clearly there’s an obsession in this global cult with children. Who runs it? Who is it?

Carlson: "I took some women's studies" for "an easy grade and they're so dumb it's not hard as long as you hate yourself"

From the August 27 edition of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight:

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): If I was taking her class, and I took some women's studies courses in college because I wanted an easy grade and they're so dumb it's not hard as long as you hate yourself.

JASON NICHOLS: That's absurd. Come to Maryland [University] and take one of those Women's Studies courses.

CARLSON: It's true, but let me be honest, if I stand up and I say, you know, I am a man and how dare you attack all men on a collective basis, how do you think I would do in her class?

[...]

NICHOLS: What is the judgement that she's making? She saying that patriarchy exists --

CARLSON: No.

NICHOLS: That women are oppressed by men, those things are true.

CARLSON: But not all women are oppressed by men. That's a lie. And it's also a sign of mental illness to really believe that every woman is oppressed by every man, that's like, demented. You need help if you think that.

Alex Jones, purveyor of conspiracy theories and warrior against LGBTQ rights, revealed on his web show that while he rails against transgender people, he enjoys porn which features them. It won’t come as a surprise to many in the LGBTQ community that someone fighting against their basic human rights also considers their very existence an exciting kink.

In the wake of Alex Jones’ social media ban, one of the videos he released included an ad for supplements he’s selling on his website. Several viewers quickly spotted something strange in the ad and they cut together short clips from the video that were re-released on YouTube and other sites. You can see one of these clips below.

...Alex Jones has demonstrated his opposition to trans rights and dignity numerous times. In November 2017, he complained about not being able to call transgender people a certain anti-trans slur (it’s often referred to as the ‘t-slur’). Just last month, he claimed that the movement for transgender rights would cause the collapse of society. In February, he attacked a trans woman for fighting to breastfeed her infant, deliberately misgendering her. He has referred to acceptance of transgender kids as ‘sexualization.’

Alex Jones appears to be very offended at the idea that transgender people might be accepted and treated as valuable human beings. However, if his browser history is any indication, he doesn’t have any problem with objectifying trans people for his own gratification.

4Chan has a brand-new imaginary girlfriend, and she might look a little bit familiar to you. “Daisy Hogg” seems designed to win the hearts (and the pants-feelings) of the 4Chan demographic — she’s a young, slender hottie who loves guns, Trump, and owning the libs.

“I saw a couple of news articles about that, it’s ridiculous. I was like looking up some reporter we’re trying to hire today and punched in some number and it popped up porn on my phone. Everybody has had porn pop-up on their phone, hundreds of times. So I’m sitting there with a phone on air, showing it to everybody, cause I couldn’t get a URL up in the studio, and then like some thing pops up and oh my god. And I looked at it and it wasn’t — the news blurred it out because it was nothing there. They blurred it to then say something was there, and then you went to it and it was some porn menu. I probably had porn menus pop up 500 times on my phone, so I appreciate your call. It’s insane ladies and gentlemen.”

He added, “There’s two types of people: People who look at porn and people who lie about it. But I wasn’t looking at porn on my phone. I don’t take phones on air that I look at porn on.”

Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte says "beautiful women" are to blame for rape crisis

Philippine dictator Rodrigo Duterte, whom Trump envies and greatly admires for his ruthlessness and cruelty, told people at a public event that his country's rape crisis is the victims' fault. "They say there are many rape cases in Davao," Duterte said. "Well, for as long as there are many beautiful women, there will be many rape cases, too."

From The New York Times:

The president appeared in his comments to be referring to a recent report by the Philippine National Police, which found that Davao recorded the highest number of rapes among major cities in the Philippines in the second quarter of the year.

The police said 42 people had reported being raped in Davao between April and June period. Critics contend that the latest data alone shatter the myth being sold by the president that Davao was free of crime and the safest city in the country.

Harry Roque, Mr. Duterte’s spokesman, tried to limit the fallout from the president’s comments, suggesting he was not a misogynist because he had appointed several women to key positions in his government.

“I don’t think we should give too much weight on what the president says by way of a joke,” Mr. Roque said, adding that residents of the southern Philippines tended to be less easily offended than their compatriots in the capital.

The most illuminating insights in the book are Wendling’s brief but revealing interviews with various ordinary people who identify as alt-righters. Taken collectively they constitute a somber and pathetic portrait of stunted and self-pitying manhood finding consolation in chauvinism. That a great many of them are single and or childless would be unworthy of note were it not so conspicuously off-brand: “For a group obsessed with the promulgation of a race,” Wendling notes wryly, “many activists seemed supremely disinterested in actually breeding.” Another common trait is their apparent inability to grasp the connection between discourse and real-life events — a somewhat ironic failing, given their fixation on the power of media. One particularly conscientious interviewee tells Wendling that he takes “great pride in making sure that nobody I meet or interact with from any race […] is affected by my beliefs in any physical way.” The archetypal alt-righter wants to have his fascist cake and eat it: one moment he is railing in blustering earnest; the next, when people are murdered — as happened in Charlottesville in August 2017 — it’s all just an ironic lark.

Wendling draws an apt analogy here between the radicalization of young would-be jihadists and the creeping brainwashing that ensnares vulnerable and credulous young men in right-wing online communities: “Once drawn in, they are conveyor-belted along a path of ever-more-extreme content, and slowly drawn into a radical bubble which warped their sense of reality.” A penchant for MAGA caps and Confederate flag-waving is merely one manifestation of the phenomenon at hand; the loose-knit community of self-styled “incels,” or “involuntary celibates,” several of whose members have carried out mass-casualty atrocities in recent years, is another. Though stereotypically populated largely by scrawny “beta” types, theirs is unequivocally an ideology of radical chauvinism every bit as dangerous as the militaristic machismo of common or garden neo-Nazism. “Alt-right” was only ever a buzz phrase; it may be fading from prominence, but the death cult remains at large. Homicidal mania is the logical end point of all such movements: both in the macropolitical context and at the level of the individual, they stand for nothing except the negation and destruction of the other. As one 4chan poster put it in those dog days of 2016: “I wanted to see everything burn and get lots of happenings.”

Were they banned because they were effective at helping men? Was it because executives at Amazon disagree with my political opinions? Was it an action from a rogue employee? They won’t tell me. Whatever the case, someone in the company clicked the delete button and I’m supposed to accept it, but it’s hard to do that when your livelihood depends on the basic assumption of fair business practices.

After HuffPost reached out to YouTube, the company deleted one video from Valizadeh’s channel for violating its hate speech policy and banned him from livestreaming for three months. Valizadeh now has one “strike” against his account. If a user receives three strikes within a three-month period, YouTube will terminate their channel.